Monday, September 18, 2006

Vote Johnson: Or Your Children will Die

Am I nuts, or is that the message of Johnson's latest ad?

Here's the transcript:

[Video-game-like montage showing connection sprouting between New York and Pakistan. Heavy, ominious music. Kind of like an episode of "24"]

VOICEOVER: A call is placed from New York to a known terrorist in Pakistan. A terrorist plot may be unfolding. Should the government intercept that call?

["Access Denied" flashes on the screen]

Or wait until the paperwork is filed?

[Black and white of Nancy Johnson]

Nancy Johnson says "act immediately."

[Images of adorable children in suburban areas flash across the screen in rapid succession]

Lives may be at stake.

[Picture of Murphy appears on screen. This is probably the worst picture of Murphy ever taken. The voice starts to get a little agitated]

Liberal Chris Murphy says 'no.' Apply for a court warrant, even if valuable time is lost.

[Focus on Murphy]

Chris Murphy. Wrong on security. Wrong for America.

[Johnson appears with elderly veterans saluting something]

JOHNSON: I'm Nancy Johnson, and I approved this message.

Aren't those warrants retroactive? Can't the government get one after the call has already been intercepted? If I understand correctly, no time is actually wasted. What am I missing, here, folks?

This ad wavers between serious, powerful relevancy and campy weirdness. I kept waiting for someone to assign a mission to Solid Snake, or for Jack Bauer to do something improbable.

Murphy, on the other hand, is sticking with issues closer to home. He delivered the Democratic radio address on Sunday, and focused on Medicare: usually a strong point for Johnson.


bluecoat said...

I saw this ad a week ago and I just laughed at the scare tactics. I don't know where Murphy is on the NSA program but nobody in either house of Congress - nobody -is suggesting what Johnson suggests Murphy would do if elected.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the picture of Murphy is that bad.

Also, the ad is decent, but not great. It does make the point, however, that Johnson is much stronger on terrorism that Murphy.

I was leaning toward Murphy (even though I am an R) until the ads. Those totally turned me off to Murphy and I know a few other people who feel the same way. I am sure it helped him pick up some support, but it hurt him overall in my opinion

bluecoat said...

On Medicare D , i was doing a little surfing and I confirmed that among other GOPers, Arlen Specter, has introduced a bill that would allow the govt. to negotiate the best price for a drug under Medicare D - it ain't price controls at all , it's good busnesss; CVS won't get the same volume discount as the government..because their volume is less.

Liv said...

Hey Anon,

I agree about the moveon ads- i was turned off by them too- they were way over the top, insinuating corruption Johnson may not have done anything illegal, but the system lets her take lots of money from drug companies and write laws that help them.

the thing is, Murphy had nothing to do with those ads. he can't, by law. the negative ads, like this one, that Nancy has on the air, on the other hand, she approved.

Grumpy said...


Yes, Congresswoman Johnson's ad clearly lies about Chris Murphy's position on this issue. (According to a press release posted on his campaign website last week.)

This would be a great negative ad if it weren't so easily refuted in ways that will paint the Congresswoman as a liar.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:30

I agree with your point that Murphy had nothing to do with the ads, but like the RCCC negative ads that ran on behalf of Simmons- the ads are simply dirty business. Murphy refused to step away from the ads (like Simmons)-- if Murphy wanted to be 'different' like he claims to be- be different and stand up against those type of 3rd party ads.

Let me take a guess--- he WON'T because he is no different.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a big fan of negative ads - which this one certainly is - but from a creative standpoint, it is a powerful ad.

Murphy wants to focus on Bush and Iraq. Johnson wants to focus on terrorism and Murphy's inexperience. This ad works.

Anonymous said...

When I first saw it on TV, I thought I was watching an ad for a new Rainbow 6 game or something.

Liv said...

Anon 1:46, Hi, I'm Liv (You seem to think I was posting Anon earlier).

I'm pretty sure that both Murphy and Johnson have said that third parties shouldn't be in the race, I don't know how else they are supposed "to step away."

But my point was simply that if you are going to judge the candidate based on the commericals on the air, do it based on the commercials they actually produce and have control over. Murphy didn't have anything to do with the moveon ads, while this rediculous wiretapping ad is approved and paid for by Johnson.

Anonymous said...

Dear Liv,

Are you interested in buying a bridge, because I know of one in Brooklyn that is for sale and I can get you a good deal on it?

Please don't be so naive.

Chris Murphy has decided on a strategy that many candidates will follow this fall - make sure your own ads are positive, and let others do the dirty worrk.

I promise you this: the DCCC (and others like will run negative ads similar to this one against Johnson. Murphy will say "I didn't have anything to do with them, because I can't."

Give me a break. I give Johnson credit, she doesn't let anyone else do her dirty work for her.

justinh said...

Anonymous said... @12:51:

"It does make the point, however, that Johnson is much stronger on terrorism that Murphy."

How exactly does it "make" the point?

Anonymous said...


Get your facts straight.

On June 22, Murphy issued a press release criticizing Nancy Johnsonfor the position she is taking in this ad. He is against the bill that she supported in the House; he even criticized her vote on the bill and against an amendment.

Please read more carefully.

Michelle said...

I completely agree with Liv. It's true that the moveon ads were over the top and far too negative. But let's take a look at the ads that Chris Murphy's campaign has put out- not a single one of them is negative. In fact, they're overwhelmingly positive. The majority of Nancy Johnson's ads, however, have been both negative and misleading if not out-right false.

As to Murphy refusing to step away from the moveon ads, I have to say that, in fact, Murphy has stated many times that he strongly disapproves of 3rd parties getting involved in the campaign and would like the campaign to be between the first party candidates only. If you're weighing who you'll vote for based on who's avoided a negative campaign, the clear choice is Murphy.

Anonymous said...


What did you expect Murphy to say? Not a very objective source for you to rely on there.

I encourage you to read Murphy's website closer next time, however. On June 22, Murphy issued a press release criticizing Johnson for the position she takes in the ad. Murphy was critical of her vote for a bill and against an amendment to the bill (one that would have weakened intelligence gathering). Based on Murphy's own press release, Johnson's ad is fair game.

Anonymous said...

Anon who asks others to read more carefully -

You might also notice that Murphy criticized Johnson for getting the existing law completely wrong in this ad.

FISA allows wiretaps to run for 72 hours before getting a warrant from a court that has rejected like 4 warrants in 20 years.

The ad is absurd on its face.

Anonymous said...

Liv & Michelle -

The same can be said of Simmons. No negative ads from him, in fact the first was a very friendly piece with his wife, the school teacher, while his opponent's was an attack ad...just curious if you feel the same about Rob as you do Chris since they are on opposite sides of the aisle.

And please don;t ignore this post...answer the question if you don't mind.

Liv said...

"I give Johnson credit, she doesn't let anyone else do her dirty work for her."

Ok, I suppose we can give her credit for being honest about the fact that she's deceitful and negative. doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd want to take credit for, but i'm pretty naive.

Anonymous said...

Nancy Johnson is using typical republican scare tactics in her recent ad. She could have just said 'I support illegal wiretapping and breaking the law', that's how ridiculous this ad is.

It's sad such a distinguished career goes unmentioned. Why doesn't she run ads highlighting her record? The truth is she's creating diversions so people won't ask her where she stands on the war, universal healthcare, immigration and where the funding for Medicare Part D is coming from, especially now that it's projected to cost more than originally thought.

Maybe she could answer those questions before she takes the time to approve more lies about Chris Murphy.

Anonymous said...

Did i miss something? I didn't find this add to be an attack against chris murphy. The fact that his weaker stance on terrorism and wiretapping is viewed as one of his negative attributes by many people who value their safety above the rights of terrorists doesn't make the ad itself negative.

This is not to say that every ad by the johnson camp has been perfect. I thought the "27 times" ad was absurd, and that the 9/11 victim ad was in poor taste. This ad however made a valid point albeit in a very video gamey manner.

Anonymous said...

One more thing,

Does Nancy even understand the way wiretapping works? I'm not sure she knows there is a grace period to retroactively get a warrent. Either she didn't know that when the ad was filmed, or she purposely left it out to deceive us.

If she really can't figure out the program I am not really comfortable with her ability to make decisions about national security. If she can, and is promoting propaganda then she should pull the ad.

Anonymous said...

This ad seems different than the others. It looks like Boomer and Co. have been pushed aside and have been replaced with a crew from Washington. This ad is pulled right out of the National GOP playbook. It could have been played in any district in the country! That campaign is gasping for air.

Although, according to the Johnson campaign, Murphy's campaign is floundering. Is that why John McCain is in town today?

zepp714 said...

To the Anonymous poster turned off by the MoveOn ads; consider that those ads were run with no input from Murphy or his campaign (which would have been illegal). Unfortunate as their tone may as been, they really stand out when set against the ads done BY the Murphy campaign: positive, forward-looking and community-connected. So I hope the actions of an unrestrained 3rd party won't turn you off of Murphy. he seems like a cool guy, and really rather refreshing to boot.

Bobby McGee said...

Johnson's ads are completely over the top. See her ridiculous "tax" ad (youtube). They're terribly ineffective i think...

Anonymous said...

Anyone hear Murphy's national response to the President's weekly radio address? I thought it was pretty good.

Anon 158 -

"Johnson doens't let anyone else do her dirty work."??? What about the 3rd party ads running that have been paid for by the "for profit" nursing homes? She says she has nothing to do with those? Isn't that "dirty" work?

Give me a break, it's a campaign, no one is holier than thou. Even, sweet, old grandma Johnson.

Anonymous said...

Liv & Michelle,

Are you going to answer Anon. 2:16's question? While you are at it, feel free to criticize Farrell as well for all of her negative ads, while Shays has never run a negative ad, ever.

We await your response.

Anonymous said...

This lie of an ad does not say to me that Murphy is weak on terrorism and Johnson is strong, what it says is that Murphy is strong on the Constitution and Johnson bows down to King George.

You took an oath to protect the Constitution, Nancy! You have abandoned that oath.

CC said...

GC: "Murphy, on the other hand, is sticking with issues closer to home." How is national security not a "home" issue? What good is healthcare if you are dead from a terrorist attack that could have been prevented with the proper intelligence? Also, it should be pointed out that several members of the roundtable on Sunday's "This Week" (ABC) commented favorably on the ad.

Anonymous said...

Anon - Courtney's ad was NOT an attack ad. It was enitely factual and issue based. Also, you are off topic. That is all.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who knew the polling numbers, especially in the 5th CD, would know that no one there supports warrantless wiretaps. Big mistake by the lady in red.

Liv said...

Wow its easy to get sucked into these debates.

My point wasn't that we should only support candidates who run positive ads and never support candidates who run negative ads. My inital reason for commenting was only to point out to one of the early posters that if you are going to evaluate a candidate based on ads, evaluate them on the ads they had something to do with.
That goes for everyone, on every side
of the aisle.

bluecoat said...

Did i miss something? I didn't find this add to be an attack against chris murphy. The fact that his weaker stance on terrorism and wiretapping is viewed as one of his negative attributes by many people who value their safety above the rights of terrorists doesn't make the ad itself negative.

What good is healthcare if you are dead from a terrorist attack that could have been prevented with the proper intelligence?

I wish frat boy, John Boehner, would post under his real name. And for those who would like to see the whole story fromThis Week from ABC yesterday.

Anonymous said...

The blog "No More Nancy" really dissected the Johnson ad and found some pretty funny flaws. Check it out for a good laugh or two.

Anonymous said...

Saying Murphy had nothing to do with the MoveOn ads is like saying Bush had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads. Please neither were condemned by either candidate!!!

Anonymous said...

Call the Congresswoman and complain. I did.

202-225-4476 DC Office
860-225-2107 Campaign

That ad is incredibly divisive at a time when this country needs to come together. (on National Security that is.) Plus, she got her facts wrong, which makes it that much more problemmatic.

Maybe Nancy is the nasty cretin that other people make her out to be.

bluecoat said...

Congresswoman Jane Harmon, a California Democrat,on domestic security and terrorism

Anonymous said...

Wow, go to Nancy Johnson's Congressional website and you'll quickly see what a sleazeball she is. All the pictures are of her with Democrats. Is she thinking about changing her party affiliation? Or is Nancy just another scummy politician doing anything and everything to stay in power!

Grumpy said...

Anon 2:02 and Anon 2:06,

I hate not getting my facts straight. Therefore, I went back and looked more closely at Murphy's website. Having done so, I stand by my statement that Congresswoman Johnson's ad lies about Murphy's position.

Anon 2:06 asked "what do you expect murphy to say." I expect Murphy to say what his position is on the issue. His 9/12 press release includes this statement: "Murphy supports the current rule of law when it comes to eavesdropping and accountability. Under the current law, the federal government can intercept phone calls at any time, provided it later shows a court why it felt it needed to do so."

There you have it. Murphy supports the current law, under which, the government could intercept the hypothetical call in Johnson's ad without a "wait until the paperwork is filed." This is the basis for the interpretation that Johnson's ad is a lie.

lisoundgirl said...

Not only is the Johnson ad over the top, but it basically says that she is okay with the Pres violating the law! What about the constitution??

The law says that the government can wiretap without a warrant, it just has to go back to get one. Based on Murphy's statements, he supports that process.

If it is a choice between someone who wants the law to be obeyed, or someone who thinks it is totally ok to ignore the law, I know who I am going to choose...

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anyone with anything even vaguely nice about Chris Murphy simply doesn't know him.

After a lifetime of involvment (stuffed my 1st political envelope in 1960 (Draft Rockefeller)) Murphy's the lowest, worst, most unethical weasel I've ever seen in either party in my life.

Forget about party affiliation for a minute (I can't recall the last time I voted a straight ticket) and go meet some active Dems in the 16th CT senate district where Murphy will LOSE by a wide margin.

The people that know him best, like him the least.

Anonymous said...

Posted just a few days ago by GC:
Rules for Comments

2. Criticism of groups, parties, causes or other people is fine--insulting, belittling or otherwise maliciously maligning them is not.

ACR, maybe you could stick to the rules you are supposed to be enforcing before you lower the level of debate to malicious mudslinging.

Michelle said...

Whoa there! That's a pretty harsh attack on Chris Murphy. I like to know why you feel so strongly about Murphy. Everybody I know who's met him has been really impressed by his genuinely kind and attentive nature. Chris also has a political record to be proud of and hasn't sold out like Nancy Johnson has. You want to talk unethical, just look at these ads that we're talking about- Nancy's ads are unethical.

As to the anonymous person demanding a response from me, (and I'm sorry but I don't check this blog every 2 minutes) I don't really know what to say you, it seems to off topic. Nothing I said had anything to do with Ferrell or Courtney- and what makes you think I'm supporting them anyway? They're not in my district and I haven't seen their ads. If they've been running negative campaign ads then that's a shame- nobody should. My point is that Chris Murphy hasn't.

Anonymous said...

someone said
"On June 22, Murphy issued a press release criticizing Nancy Johnsonfor the position she is taking in this ad. He is against the bill that she supported in the House; he even criticized her vote on the bill and against an amendment."

No, check Murphy's website...

The press release from June 22 criticizes Johnson for being the ONLY CONGRESSMAN FROM CONN. to vote against a bill that said federal tax money shouldnt go to pay for ILLEGAL wiretapping. ILLEGAL. So... is she admitting now that the Bush wiretapping is illegal, if she attacks Murphy for calling her on that vote?

Here is the release on Murphy's site

OhPlease said...

The good news is that Authentic Connecticut Republican is clearly just that, an authentic republican. Who else would try to divert attention from the disgraceful campaign smear tactics and disastrous voting record of Nancy Johnson by launching a personal nasty attack on her opponent?

Nancy is done. New Britain paper says she's losing already. Boomer is missing in action. Her campaign is in disarray. She's bitter and angry about being challenged on her abandonment of her constituents, and she's going to lose.

Anonymous said...

as if lying about murphy's stance on tv wasn't enough. now johnson and her staffer are taking it to the blogs and nasty personal attacks. chris murphy may be a nice guy or not, but i don't think that's what people are voting on. what ever happened to judging candidates on their record? so far i'll i've seen from johnson are negative ads about nothing, and murphy has only had stuff on about where he stands. seems like that says something.

ctmel51 said...

I am really suprised by the comments of Authentic Republican - I actually met Murphy when he visited Sam Collins Day. I am already getting tired of all the political ads this year, so I wasn't rushing up to meet a politician. but I must say that when he greeted me,I was impressed. He seems like a genuine guy who really is in this race for the right reasons. I can't imagine that the comments of authentic republican are true.

Anonymous said...

George Stephanopolous called Nancy's ad "great".

Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to blow a perfect opportunity with the 2006 elections.

I hope we continue to talk about national security from now until election day, since we all know that Americans view the Democrats as the better party on national security.

What is the Democrat strategy? talk about minimum wage and gas prices that are already plummeting.

Going to be a another great November for the GOP

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said...
ACR, maybe you could stick to the rules you are supposed to be enforcing before you lower the level of debate to malicious mudslinging.

He's a public figure - further, go ahead and try taking my advice.

Find out why the active Democrats in the 16th loathe him.

Anonymous said...

"He's a public figure"

so your attacks would hold up in a court of law. thats not the point. everyone else on this thread managed to remain civil, despite passionate debate. you didn't.

if you have a grievence with some positon Murphy has taken, a failure in his duties, or an actual issue to present here, by all means do so. but as you are not an "active Democrat in the 16th district" don't claim to speak for them.

Anonymous said...

I know Chris Murphy. He was my "rep" for 8 years. I can't vote him, or Johnson. She is in another district, and he just moved this past year to that district.
But if I could vote there it would be a no brainer... Murphy is right, "it's time for a change" and 8 years of him has been quite enough.

Anonymous said...

if there is so much animosity towards murphy someone is going to have to explain to me why he won his re-election in 2004 by such a huge margin. seems like all the dems (and most other voters) in the 16th seem to like him just fine.

Anonymous said...

Stupid smear job, (without any accompanying details), by stupid anonymous Republicans.

Honestly, if they have any substantive gripes with Murphy, let's hear them. Instead it's all whispers, "Nobody really likes him", "everyone around here hates Chris", etc.


Anonymous said...

I've known Murphy since the mid-1990's. I even worked with him at one time. He's very smart and works really hard. I like the guy and hope like hell that he wins.

Anonymous said...

Okay I'm compelled to respond.

I live in the 16th district and I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't like Chris.

Many of us are sad to see him leave the state senate because he's not easily replaced. There aren't many people around with his honesty, intelligence and integrity.

He will make a wonderful addition to the House of Representatives.

Anonymous said...

I am a Republican but have worked with Chris on various issues at the state Capitol. He has always followed through, grasped the issues, articulated the issues accurately to his colleagues, addressed the issues eloquently on the Senate floor and most importantly, and increasingly a rare commodity - kept his word.

He should be elected to Congress but I will miss him in the state senate as well.

Grumpy said...


If you have specific actions of Murphy's which you think bring his ethics into question, then by all means, you should post about those actions. But you should also be prepared to provide specific, verifiable details to defend your claims. If you are unable to do so, then making comments about Murphy, such as those in your 6:15 comment, is contemptible. Doubly so considering you have the privilege of being a front-page poster on this blog.

To the various anon's who called Johnson "sleazeball," "nasty cretin," and more, ditto.

Also, to ACR and the various anon's who've commented, you have not refuted the core claim by myself and others that Johnson's ad is an outright lie. Do you, in fact, agree that the Congresswoman is lying about Murphy's stance on this issue?

Fenix said...

Yea, I have to say the slander on both sides is uncalled for. At least people somewhat hinted at reasons for why Johnson was "sleaze" but the comments on Chris Murphy??! Catty gossip! Is this is an intelligent political blog or a Middle School girls' bathroom??? "Pssspp, no one really likes Chris Murphy, pass it on."

As for me, I will provide specific reasons for not liking Johnson:

1. Her ad IS deceptive, specifically when it says we would have to "wait for the paper work to be filed" before we could intercept a call. That is just a total and complete lie...that phrase is what makes the ad dishonest. The current law allows calls to be intercepted ANYTIME any paperwork is filed AFTER the call is intercepted, and the information obtained, thus it does not prevent our government from protecting us.. So the Chris Murphy "wants to wait for paperwork" before we can intercept a call is a COMPLETE lie.

2. She panders to the most base, low level feelings. Fear...that your kids will be killed or your taxes will be hiked. Or sticking veterans or someone who lost someone in 9/11 in front of a camera. Nothing of substance. Am I supposed to be impressed that she's nice to veterans and people who lost loved ones in 9/11? I'm a young and rather rude young man, and I'd still go out of my way to be kind to those people, doesn’t make me a great guy, it just means I’m not a complete piece of crap.

zepp714 said...

ACR, what gives? What exactly makes Murphy the "lowest, worst, most unethical weasel" you've ever seen? For all your lauded experience (boy, starting off working for Goldwater sure turned out well!), what makes you so sure Murphy is scum? I've met the man times, and find him to be decent, honest and hardworking.

And what makes you an "authentic connecticut republican" if you're so proud of usually voting split ticket? I guess we don't have much to worry about if "authentic" reps in CT vote Democratic half the time!

Anonymous said...

I know there are a lot of 16 year old Murphy groupies out there.

My experience is quite simple ...He knocked on my door 8 years ago, and told me it was time for a change, and he was the key to that change. Funny, same message from him 8 years later. He didn't deliver.

He sat in my living room, face to face with me, and agreed 100% with all my concerns. After he was elected, sadly, with my help, the only time I could get him to respond to me, and my continued appeals that he address my concerns, was after I added financially to his re election.

I am no fan of Johnson, but honestly, can't you Democrats with all your depth in this state, come up with someone for us,who would consider replacing her could actually vote for???

Murphy for me ain't that guy folks!!! I want an adult, who has a family, held some "real" job outside of public service, paid property taxes for a few years, and put his/her kids through college. I want someone who understands first hand what that means, in this day and age, not another 34 year old lifetime politician like Dodd, Lieberman, Delauro, Larson, and yes Johnson!!!!